Should baby K be allowed to see TH? ***POLL***

[grayjay]

If she already thinks her future is ruined, what's to say she couldn't do something to fatally harm baby K even during a supervised visit, just for further vengeance. I'd feel so much differently, if in the divorce proceedings her attorneys weren't so concerned about her incriminating herself.

 

[stmarysmead]

If she already thinks her future is ruined, what's to say she couldn't do something to fatally harm baby K even during a supervised visit, just for further vengeance. I'd feel so much differently, if in the divorce proceedings her attorneys weren't so concerned about her incriminating herself.

So true.

Anyone unstable enough to try to hire a killer...and cause a small child in her care to disappear...is capable of anything.

I shudder to think of how Kyron loved and trusted her...and how fearful and confused he must have been.

 

[Mylou]

I voted with supervision, as I don't know much about TH except what her accusers have said. When there are facts, and when I can hear or read her own words, I may then change my mind completely, or not at all.

 

[germaine]

If she already thinks her future is ruined, what's to say she couldn't do something to fatally harm baby K even during a supervised visit, just for further vengeance. I'd feel so much differently, if in the divorce proceedings her attorneys weren't so concerned about her incriminating herself.

I agree that is big, but I worry about her mental state regardless of whether she is guilty or innocent. I don't think she is innocent b/c, among many, many other things, she hasn't challenged the RO. But IF she were innocent I can imagine her being on the very edge, if not over it. People harm their children in more "normal" custody battles all of the time, even if they haven't been accused of a crime, much less wrongly accused by the other parent (which, again, I don't think is the case here). And honeslty, she does not look okay to me. Just blank iykwim. jmoo

 

[Jade2010]

Yes, under supervision by a disinterested, professional third party. None of Terri's family/friends and none of Kaine's family/friends.

 

[Scamperoo]

^^^^
Somehow I doubt Kaine will willingly give visitation, supervised or otherwise, to TH. I think most the locals I know would support him on that decision 100%. Plus, I don't think he feels he is in a personality contest with the public.

On the other hand most of the locals I know are concerned that nothing but innuendo and aspersions have been the order of the day, we are still worried about our children and disturbed LE is looking in only one direction.

She should have supervised visitation, there is nothing proven against her and until there is she should be allowed to hold her baby.

Some complain about her not seeking visitation saying she doesn't care and this proves her guilt, others maintain that she shouldn't be allowed it anyway just in case she is guilty. It was even suggested that even if it wasn't her that she should then be allowed visitation after she was found not to be a person of interest, one would imagine she should be able to get joint custody at the very least.

This woman no matter guilt or innocence will be pilloried for the rest of her life. This is not a situation where one says "Opps" sorry my bad! forget about all that jumping to conclusion and taking your baby stuff, this is America and she is innocent until proven guilty.

It seems to me that all parties are being punitive against this woman, maybe they have a reason to be but if they do we need to know and very soon.

 

[GrainneDhu]

ETA; If I were the judge, I would make it a see you all back here in three months, and I want a detailed report of the baby's behavior before during and after each visit, then I'll decide if the visits can continue or not. If the baby starts to act out, and doesn't want to see her mom, then she shouldn't have to, because we don't know what she has seen. She could have seen horrible things on June 4. and before.
She might be afraid of her mom, and her mom might want to know if she does know anything. So, cautiously move forward.

SBM

According to KH, Baby K was playing and seemed normal when KH came home about 2 pm on 4 June. I doubt that Baby K would have seemed so normal if she had seen something she recognised as horrible.

That doesn't mean Baby K absolutely did not see anything incriminating; I don't think there is any way to know right now. But if KH says Baby K was playing normally at 2 pm that day, then I think it's safe to assume that she was not feeling traumatized that day.

There was a poster on here a while back who said she works for an agency that specializes in interviewing; she said that the youngest children her agency would attempt to interview were two years old and that their success rate with such young children was very low.

Considering that Baby K was only 16 months when Kyron disappeared, I consider it highly unlikely she could communicate anything about that day, to her mother or anyone else.

 

[cluciano63]

Kaine does not sound as though he is completely against TH seeing the baby with supervision. If he's not, I'm not.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Court documents? They're the total story? OK.

SBM

I agreed with your entire post.

My own personal favourite example illustrating the credibility of temporary restraining orders is this:

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1143004,00.html

David Letterman was served with a temporary restraining order barring him from coming within three yards of the petitioner and not "think of me, and release me from his mental harassment and hammering."

Yes, a judge signed that order.

Had Mr Letterman chosen not to challenge the order, it would automatically have gone into effect for a year (try not to think of pink elephants, Dave!).

Does anyone here really believe the petitioner's allegations? I sure don't. I believe it much more likely that she was suffering from some form of mental illness that was causing her real anguish but that it was not Mr Letterman's fault or doing.

Did the judge believe her allegations? The judge's beliefs are largely irrelevant to the granting of a temporary restraining order. By "largely" I mean that someone who believes that David Letterman is communicating with her via eye movements and thoughts is able to get a judge to sign a TRO. That's a pretty large "largely."

If the standard of proof is "a judge signed it, so it must be true" then that TRO against Mr Letterman must have been thought to be true.

 

[Kat010]

SBM

I agreed with your entire post.

My own personal favourite example illustrating the credibility of temporary restraining orders is this:

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1143004,00.html

David Letterman was served with a temporary restraining order barring him from coming within three yards of the petitioner and not "think of me, and release me from his mental harassment and hammering."

Yes, a judge signed that order.

Had Mr Letterman chosen not to challenge the order, it would automatically have gone into effect for a year (try not to think of pink elephants, Dave!).

Does anyone here really believe the petitioner's allegations? I sure don't. I believe it much more likely that she was suffering from some form of mental illness that was causing her real anguish but that it was not Mr Letterman's fault or doing.

Did the judge believe her allegations? The judge's beliefs are largely irrelevant to the granting of a temporary restraining order. By "largely" I mean that someone who believes that David Letterman is communicating with her via eye movements and thoughts is able to get a judge to sign a TRO. That's a pretty large "largely."

If the standard of proof is "a judge signed it, so it must be true" then that TRO against Mr Letterman must have been thought to be true.

*thud*

 

[Billylee]

I voted with supervision. Even though she is not charged with anything, there was enough information given to KH to request the RO, so at this time, I think it would need to be supervised until those matters are cleared. Kaine doesn't seem to be against it either:

Kaine Horman has mixed feelings about visitation, "Depending on the circumstances, the answer could be yes or no."

He anticipates the visitation issue will be resolved at future hearings.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Terri-Horman-Seeks-Visitation--104610209-missing-kyron-portland.html

 

[GrainneDhu]

I would rather err on the side of extreme caution because the baby can deal with the trauma of not seeing her mother but only if she is alive and accounted for.

SBM

I am truly not trying to be snarky with the following question. It is just an attempt to figure out where you (and others) are coming from in terms of acceptable risk/benefit ratios.

There is nothing in life that does not entail some form of risk. Sometimes those risks are very small and highly unlikely, such as a meteorite knocking someone off their bike in front of an oncoming bus. Could happen but so unlikely that properly quantifying that risk is beyond my pathetic math skills.

Sometimes the risks are quite high but the benefits are such that the risk seems worth it.

I tend to use the risk of riding in a car as my general level of acceptable risk. The vast majority of children in this country ride in cars at some point during their lives, usually at many points during their lives. There is an approximately 1 in 6700 risk they will die in a car accident (according to Harvard School of Public Health) but this is widely considered an acceptable level of risk.

How many children are abducted or killed in the course of state supervised visitation? I have heard of one possible case but no more.

If the risk is less than 1 in 6,700, then should that not be considered an acceptable risk?

 

[Donjeta]

SBM

I am truly not trying to be snarky with the following question. It is just an attempt to figure out where you (and others) are coming from in terms of acceptable risk/benefit ratios.

There is nothing in life that does not entail some form of risk. Sometimes those risks are very small and highly unlikely, such as a meteorite knocking someone off their bike in front of an oncoming bus. Could happen but so unlikely that properly quantifying that risk is beyond my pathetic math skills.

Sometimes the risks are quite high but the benefits are such that the risk seems worth it.

I tend to use the risk of riding in a car as my general level of acceptable risk. The vast majority of children in this country ride in cars at some point during their lives, usually at many points during their lives. There is an approximately 1 in 6700 risk they will die in a car accident (according to Harvard School of Public Health) but this is widely considered an acceptable level of risk.

How many children are abducted or killed in the course of state supervised visitation? I have heard of one possible case but no more.

If the risk is less than 1 in 6,700, then should that not be considered an acceptable risk?

Well, actually not allowing her to see her child and allowing her to see her child in a supervised setting both represent the cautious end of the spectrum IMO. As opposed to letting her take the baby and do whatever she wanted during weekend visitations or some such arrangement. I do agree with you that the risk of being abducted or killed during competent supervised visitation in a safe setting is usually very low which is why I voted that it could be allowed. But if I already had one child missing in suspicious circumstances it might not be a risk I wanted to take, even if it was statistically safer than eating peanuts. There are people who end up doing desperate things to their children and/or themselves if they think they're at the end of their rope and even one would be too much if it was my child. (Ditto for car accidents, of course...)

The comparison with the risks of dying in the car is not quite fair IMO because even if the absolute number of deaths in car accidents is higher than the number of deaths in supervised visitation there are lots more children traveling in cars every day than there are children having supervised visitation with their potentially murderous parents.

There are other factors that should be taken into account than just the risk of death. How big are the potential benefits for the child? The child might lose out on a lot if they could never travel in the car anywhere. Could she walk to the school? Are all her relatives and friends within walking distance? Do the potential benefits of having a car outweigh the potential risk of dying? Did we calculate the increased risk of dying in a car accident as a pedestrian if the child walks everywhere in the equation?

The children usually lose out on a lot if they're not able to meet their parents but if the parent happens to be abusive, unstable and potentially dangerous even homicidal the loss might not be all that great and it might be considered that even the minimal risk of death involved in supervised visitations is not worth taking because the likelihood of a good outcome is not that good. The parent might do other harmful things besides abduction and murder in the course of the visitations, such as emotional abuse or milder forms of physical abuse. If the parent is unable to bond and nurture the child emotionally and the child is upset by the visits is it worth it, even if they both live?

IMO a competent professional evaluation with actual access to Terri and the baby would be better able to figure these probabilities out. They might be fine, considering I've heard no one say that she was abusive to the baby but then again things might have changed.

 

[PaulaF513]

Murder for hire plots don't count?

Alleged and by an anonymous person ?...no, in my book they do not

 

[gwenabob]

Alleged and by an anonymous person ?...no, in my book they do not

What anonymous person? Law Enforcement made this allegation after an investigation. The LS is not anonymous. He is known to both Terri and LE. Just because WE don't have his full and complete name does not make him anonymous.

 

[Kimmer]

I have also voted NO and here is my thought process for my answer....I have from the very beginning of this case thought that what TH was wanting to do is hurt Kaine in any way she could, I realize that there have not been charges filed against TH for the MFH plot but to me that does not mean that it did not happen it just means that as of right now the investigation has not come to a point where the DA feels that he could prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, but that by no means is saying that it didn't happen or could not have happened, I feel very comfortable that LE has either email's, text messages or some other hard proof that there was indeed a relationship between TH and the landscaper, As for him having an alias in my opinion that could be as simple as the guy not wanting to have the press all over his property and possibly his family while this mess is being sorted out, I think at some point there will be charges against TH for this crime....

Now onto Kyron, once for what ever reason TH decided to abandon the idea of having Kaine killed I think she wanted to find another way to kill him, not physically but she had pretty well killed him emotionally with his son missing, So again this goes to the fact that TH wants to make darn sure she hurts Kaine and to this end she has achieved that goal not to mention Desiree, if the truth be known I would think that she has harboured ill feelings for Desiree for years so in doing away with Kyron she was able to get a 2 for 1 she has hurt both of them deep down to there sole..

Now as far as her having visitation with baby K I say no way, if someone is willing to go to these links to hurt Kaine then what would she do to hurt Baby K, it does not have to be a physical hurt it can be an emotional hurt that will confuse this child beyond belief...I have mentioned before that I did not grow up with the best childhood and I can tell you those emotional scars last a lifetime and they also can take a lifetime to understand, it is what happens when you are a child that can haunt you for your whole adult life..

And when Bunch mentioned in court that TH could not testify without self incrimination that was all I needed to hear, When you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing.

 

[stmarysmead]

What anonymous person? Law Enforcement made this allegation after an investigation. The LS is not anonymous. He is known to both Terri and LE. Just because WE don't have his full and complete name does not make him anonymous.

Exactly.

LE investigated.

They just did not pass along some random statement. The LS was found to be credible...after an investigation

To me, LE are the professionals. One may trust them or not, but they are paid to do this job. I know people go to doctors and then reject the diagnoses if they don't like it, but I prefer to give the professionals the benefit of the doubt until there is reason IN THIS CASE...not to.

I think it's unfair to judge negatively the quality of their work just because there is no indictment yet. They are not on our timetable.

I've been thinking during these searches of Laci Peterson. The body was found and the hammer fell on Scott. But they did not rush. I believe there will be an indictment with or without a body. But winter is approaching, hunting season...conditions improve.

As someone said..tick...tick...tick.

Every say Terri Horman wonders if today is the day.

 

[Donjeta]

This might be an example where I would act on my principle to err on the side of caution. If serious allegations are made, I would prefer to take extra precautions and suggest supervised visitation or temporary RO to ensure the safety of the child while we're investigating the allegations. If the allegations turn out to be wrong we have unjustly interfered with the parent and the child's unlimited access to each other's company temporarily but it's the smaller of two evils IMO. If the allegations turn out to be right and we did nothing because mere allegations don't count it could be too late and mean a permanent tragedy.

If they have already found that the MFH story is BS then it naturally shouldn't have any bearing on the custody question.

 

[Scamperoo]

What anonymous person? Law Enforcement made this allegation after an investigation. The LS is not anonymous. He is known to both Terri and LE. Just because WE don't have his full and complete name does not make him anonymous.

Had the Landscaper's real name been known to Terri one would think her own Lawyers would have been able to contact him, they have not been able to yet. No one said LE provided the LS with an alias and as yet his real name has not been divulged.

 

[stmarysmead]

Had the Landscaper's real name been known to Terri one would think her own Lawyers would have been able to contact him, they have not been able to yet. No one said LE provided the LS with an alias and as yet his real name has not been divulged.

Maybe "the alias" is the name he gave Terri when they were involved in their "activities" together. If so, he was probably darn glad of it when she started asking him to murder her husband.

Now her lawyer can't find him under that name...but LE knows who he is and what he knows.